= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on A Sketch of an Anti-Realist Metaethics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (136)
FWIW, I have a passing familiarity from long ago with both terms, and none with the acronyms. I would have been mystified if you'd written ACC and probably would not have been able to figure out what you're talking about, given some quick googling. Though DLPFC could probably have gotten me there after googling that.
It's certainly easier to look up terms instead of abbreviations, and even moreso years later. People using abbreviations that have since fallen out of use is one of my pet peeves when reading older papers.
Right, but "a passing familiarity from long ago" != "knowing anything about them" in my mind. (Obviously I should have used a less hyperbolic phrase.) OTOH I wasn't aware of the phenomenon where abbreviations often fall out of use. I think the DLPFC was only carved out of conceptspace in the last decade, both the idea and its abbreviation, which does indicate that the inverse problem might be common for quickly advancing fields like neuroscience. (ETA: So, I was wrong to see this as an example of the thing I was complaining about. (I don't think I was wrong to complain about that thing but only in a deontological sense; in a consequentialist sense I was wrong there too.))